Category: education reform

Posted on

Conference 2.0 – changing how sessions are selected

I blogged about EdubloggerCon West the other day as an example of an “unconference” (Conferences must change with the times) and discussed how conferences must move forward to become more dynamic, timely, and better meet the needs of attendees both physical and virtual.

How conference sessions are selected sets the tone for the event. Right now, most conferences select sessions based on a review system created for academic conferences. This system usually consists of a group of readers who rate the proposals. The submissions that score the best from the most reviewers are accepted.

Sounds fair, right? But read on…

Session selection – a bit of history
For academic conferences, session selection is part of the process by which accepted papers are published as proceedings, which enhance the reputation of an academic (publish or perish). The process weeds out papers that don’t meet the conference or journal criteria, makes sure that relevant research results are properly cited, and that the papers form a serious, robust representation of the most current research in the field.

However, conferences that aren’t based on academic publishing tend to retain this legacy. It has become a tradition that no one questions. So the question is — is this unchallenged system really work?

What’s wrong with this process?
I was surprised to find a strong, well-researched argument against the standard session review process on a website from KGCM 2008 (the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management.)

Now, I don’t know these people at all, but the organization is interested in learning how people learn at conferences. Who knew there was such a thing!

For their own conference and journal, they found that the tried-and-true method of paper and session selection was deeply flawed. Their conclusion – the standard review process is “faulty,” “unreliable,” and worse, tends “…to refuse good papers because of the reviewers’ bias against new ideas or new paradigms.”

“So, it is evident that acceptance policies based on the positive agreement of reviewers will increase the probability of refusing good papers.”

Bias against new ideas
This is bad news for educators going to conferences looking for big ideas that will fundamentally change education. The session selection process works to deny you this opportunity.

Let’s be honest — it’s human nature to resist change. One bad score from one reviewer could easily mean a session is declined, even if other reviewers score it well. It’s why Olympics-style judging throws out the high and low scores.

It’s also natural to want to fit in with the group. When reviewers work together to rate sessions against a rubric, it’s hard not to favor sessions that you think will fit in and make the conference organizers happy.

So in looking at session selection policy, is it any wonder that this method leads to homogenous, cookie cutter selections that represent the acceptable norm? Shouldn’t we be concerned that in times that call for radical change, the standard method for conference session selection is biased against radical proposals?

So what to do instead?
The method this conference uses is different. Instead of scores, they rely on reviewers to recommend either accept or deny. Then:

  1. The majority rule, when there is no agreement among the reviewers with regards to acceptance or non-acceptance, of a given submission.
  2. The non-acceptance of the submission when there is agreement among its reviewers for not accepting it.
  3. Acceptance of the paper when in doubt (a draw or a tie among the opinions of the reviewers, for example).

This seems like a tiny change. Yet the outcome could be completely different.

Would this mean too many accepted sessions? Maybe. But I’m sure there are creative ways to solve these problems. If you read the research-based methodology from KGCM, they have a process designed to pare down the selections. Technology could be part of the answer too. Presentations could go online, for example. Many conferences are also experimenting with shorter sessions, blogger cafes, open forums, and other innovations.

I don’t claim to have “Conference 2.0” figured out, but I think a necessary first step is to challenge our assumptions about how conference programs are assembled.

Sylvia

Posted on

Conferences must change with the times

TCEA Tweet-upWhen you work with schools across the nation, you soon realize that February and March are never going to be your own again. These are the months where many states schedule their state educational technology conferences. In the last couple of weeks, I’ve been to Texas (TCEA), Washington (NCCE), Washington DC (CoSN) and of course, my home state of California (CUE).

If I could have cloned myself, I could have gone to Florida (FETC), Illinois (IL-TCE), Arizona (MEC), Michigan (MACUL), New Jersey (NJECC) and probably more I’m forgetting. (I can’t even bring myself to find all the full names and links to these terrific conferences! Bad blogger!)

TCEA Tweet-upThese conferences give technology-using educators a chance to reflect and recharge, hear inspiring speakers and talk to colleagues from near and far. This year, more than ever, I met folks who previously have only been virtual avatars, Twitter buddies, or names on blogs. The opportunities to use Web 2.0 tools and social networks to build a Personal Learning Network has changed many educator’s lives, and brought new spark to a traditionally isolated profession.

I believe conferences must change as well, or risk being a relic of the past.

Technical difficulties, of courseAt CUE, I participated in a day long “unconference” event called EdubloggerCon West run by Steve Hargadon of Classroom 2.0 (a social network for educators.) Instead of submitting session ideas months in advance, and a faceless committee deciding which sessions are presented, the attendees shaped the day to our own needs. A wiki was used to plan the event. People signed up, and added their ideas to another page for ideas about what to talk about.

At the event, the first item on the agenda was to decide what the day would become. Imagine that, the attendees shaped their own day of learning to their personal needs!

Alice Mercer and Gail DeslerSomeone volunteered to edit the wiki, and an agenda emerged on the fly. Some people wanted to talk about technology and language development. Some people wanted to talk about project-based learning. Concepts got merged and people stepped forward to offer new ideas. There were some mini-sessions (5 minutes!) on various tools. At the end of the day, the wiki stood as both a record of what happened, and links to the tools and ideas we talked about.

It was an interesting day, both for the learning taking place and the concept that conferences could change and adapt to new technology that allows more personalized learning. It felt like a mash-up of the best conference sessions you’ve ever been to, combined with the most interesting conversations you tend to have when committed, passionate educators gather after-hours.

Lisa Linn at EdubloggerCon WestWhile this exact format might not work for thousands of attendees, there are certainly elements that can be adapted and experimented with. Conferences as we know them today are going to change as technology and culture change — or become obsolete.

Steve is getting to be pretty good at structuring these events. It’s an interesting combination of leadership, experimentation on the bleeding edge of technology, herding cats, and stepping back gracefully to allow others to share the spotlight. It’s one of those skills that looks magically effortless when it’s done right, but isn’t. Sort of teaching.

EdubloggerCon WestThese days, change happens quickly, even for those who feel ready for it. In fact, the name EdubloggerCon seemed cutting edge a year or two ago, but now it’s too focused on one tool in a universe of possibilities. It’s really about changing education for the modern world.

Congratulations to CUE and executive director Mike Lawrence for allowing this experiment to take place and not being afraid of the future.

If you are attending the National Educational Computer Conference (NECC) in San Antonio in June, there is a similar event being held two days before NECC starts. More information here.

Posted on

This just in…

Stop the presses – having just one teacher who cares about them can stop a high school student from dropping out.

Obvious? Sure. But how many obvious things aren’t we doing in schools?

Among the conclusions:

  • Students generally like school and want to graduate.
  • Some feel financial pressure to drop out and get a job.
  • Some are driven out of school by a fear of violence.
  • Students believe that some of the challenges they face are caused by a lack of resources in their school.
  • Students who believe a teacher or coach cares about them are more inclined to stay in school.

Here’s the full report from the California Dropout Research Project. You can download the entire report or a condensed version there, and see a series of video clips of student interviews here.

Posted on

The art of being an unreasonable educator

Many educators I speak to daily are very reasonable people. They have dreams about how education should be, but still show up for work every day in a system that is slow, if not hostile to change. They compromise with people to gain small victories, play by the rules and work miracles in sub-standard conditions. They bide their time hoping that someday their work will pay off, if not in systemic change, at least in the lives of future citizens of the world.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw

Reasonableness as a roadblock to change
Who hasn’t heard something like this — “I totally believe in technology and project-based learning. But my board is really conservative, test scores are down, and my principal doesn’t like that kind of airy-fairy nonsense. Besides, five years ago we tried it and half the teachers used “project time” as a smoke break. So I was thinking that after testing is over I would have the kids do a project where the kids use vocabulary words and write a letter to the troops overseas. Maybe I could have them make a PowerPoint or do something with technology. I can probably squeeze the whole thing into 3 days. That way I can say it’s got language arts skills, 21st century skills, it won’t take too much time, and the board will love the troops angle. ”

Reasonable compromise or watered-down status quo with technology tacked on?

The problem is that by being reasonable, educators pre-compromise themselves out of strong, defendable positions. Project-based learning is a strong position to come from. There is research on how to do it, why to do it, and lots of examples of success. But by compromising even before you get to the negotiation, you lose out. You have lost your ability to create conditions of success, and you have lost your negotiating power.

Most likely when you get to the actual planning, the people you thought would be impressed by your reasonableness stun you by not appreciating it at all. They want MORE compromise. In your eyes, they are unreasonable. You’ve already compromised (in your head) and now there’s no more to give. How come they get to be unreasonable when you’ve worked so hard before the meeting even started? It’s not fair!

You must practice the art of being unreasonable.

The art of being unreasonable

  • Dream big.
  • Come to the negotiation with a plan that meets all your needs and only your needs, with justification for them. You can compromise later from a place of power.
  • Don’t play fair. Kids lives are at stake. For example, take kids into a meeting and have them present. It’s hard to say no to cute 8 year olds. (This is not about doing illegal or unethical things!)
  • Acknowledge other people’s fears but label them as fears, not roadblocks or reasons to change the plan. Invite them to participate as your plan unfolds, so they can see that their fears are unfounded.
  • Just because you understand other people’s arguments doesn’t mean you have to accept or act on them. That’s what reasonable people do. The other side isn’t accepting your arguments; you don’t have to accept theirs. Remember, you are unreasonable!
  • Find others who believe in the same things you do and create a personal support system.
  • Don’t be a martyr. If your plan is getting crushed and it’s just not going to happen, walk away. Come back with a bigger and better one.

Be unreasonable, not a pain
I know. You are saying, “I work with unreasonable people all the time! It’s not pleasant! They think they know everything, everyone resents it and figures out sneaky little ways to sabotage the plan. I want to be seen as fair, so that everyone will want to work with me, not against me.”

Everyone wants to be liked. Educators are probably the nicest people of all. Would it be so bad if people thought of you as a rebel, a dreamer, or a force of nature instead of just “nice”? Add a few new adjectives to your personal profile. You might be surprised that not only will people still like you, they will respect you more. Allow your unreasonableness to come from a place of righteous power and promoting student welfare, not anger or self-promotion. Anyway, nobody likes a pushover.

“You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?” — George Bernard Shaw

Go ahead, you have my permission, be unreasonable.

Sylvia

Posted on

What research says about project-based learning

ASCD magazine coverASCD’s always excellent magazine Educational Leadership, hits another home run with this month’s issue (Feb 2008). The overarching theme, Teaching Students to Think is supported by a dozen articles from a wide range of perspectives – teaching, classroom practice, assessment, content areas, and more.

One article of particular interest to tech-loving educators is Jane David’s What Research Says About Project-Based Learning. Educators often find that technology supports project-based learning, and vice versa. So finding research that supports project-based learning and outlines successful practice is one more tool in the toolkit of technology-using educators.

This article is a terrific, easy-to-read introduction to project-based learning and clear, quick summaries of relevant research. Many people believe that project-based learning is “good”, but something akin to magic. Articles like this can dispel some of these myths and help define what project-based learning might look like in real life. Some conclusions:

  • Some studies measure project-based learning impact on student achievement. Not surprisingly, it’s not as simple as test scores. Some studies found simple test score increases across the board or in different populations, but some didn’t. But improvements were seen in more complex assessments – attitudes towards learning, problem-solving, and planning ability. (Do you hear 21st century skills here?)
  • The wide variety of project-based learning experiences make a single research conclusion hard to find. However, this same variety meant that project-based learning is adaptable to many classrooms.
  • Some studies focus on the challenges of project-based learning–outlining the obstacles created by short class periods, mandated curriculum, lack of teacher planning time, and narrow focus on multiple choice tests. There are some terrific nuggets of information here about what commitments a school needs to make to create a serious project-based learning environment. It’s not something you just do every other Tuesday.

David concludes:

These studies suggest that project-based learning, when fully realized, can improve student learning. However, the research also underscores how difficult it is to implement project-based learning well. Together these findings suggest caution in embracing this practice unless the conditions for success are in place, including strong school support, access to well-developed projects, and a collaborative culture for teachers and students.

Yet, teachers can use the key ideas underlying project-based learning in some measure in any classroom. Using real-life problems to motivate students, challenging them to think deeply about meaningful content, and enabling them to work collaboratively are practices that yield benefits for all students.

I’d like to add that students themselves can be part of the solution that makes project-based learning possible in schools. Students can learn to be mentors in their own classrooms, leveraging the teacher’s ability to assist more students and overcome logistical obstacles. Student ownership of the project and encouraging a collaborative environment increases the likelihood of success. By including students in the planning and implementation of project-based learning, you gain student perspective and an opportunity to teach students valuable skills. They learn how to advocate for their ideas, plan, troubleshoot, and work in a group. When technology is involved, students can become experts in the technology too, and help mentor fellow students which further supports the collaborative process.

Our TechYES model of student technology literacy certification is built on this kind of research and practical experience. Student peer mentors can make project-based learning possible in situations where the obstacles might otherwise be too high. We believe that technology literacy and project-based learning are inseparable from 21st century skills. It’s too important to write project-based learning off as a “nice to have.”

Hopefully this article finds its way into administrator inboxes world-wide.

Posted on

When teaching meets research meets blogging

For many teachers, “educational research” is something that happens far far away in the mists of academia. But for a few teachers, research has become a very personal mission that validates and enhances their teaching and provides tangible benefits for their students. To these teachers, research is a valuable tool in the quest to improve personal practice, and might even bring change to other teachers worldwide.

In the same way, educators often find that blogging about their own practice brings them new insights about their role in the classroom and the world. Reaching out to a new professional learning network also creates opportunities to share and re-imagine ideas and practices. Teacher research is just one more step in formalizing these realizations and relationships.

Me? A Teacher-Researcher? is an excellent article about getting started as a teacher-researcher. Written by Brenda Dyck, it explores how and why teachers can use research as a platform for expressing and sharing their views of teaching and learning.

“Classroom research” always sounded very clinical to me. It was a practice that — along with statistical analysis and mice — belonged in a laboratory, not in my classroom. That was the way I looked at it until I read researcher Charles Kettering’s common-sense assessment of what research really is:

“Research is a high-hat word that scares a lot of people. It needn’t. It’s rather simple. Essentially, research is nothing but a state of mind…a friendly, welcoming attitude toward change…going out to look for change instead of waiting for it to come. Research is an effort to do things better and not to be caught asleep at the switch. It is the problem-solving mind as contrasted with the let-well-enough-alone mind. It is the tomorrow mind instead of the yesterday mind.”

If you are blogging about your own practice as a classroom teacher, you are already a teacher-researcher. By sharing your voice with the world, you formalize what you know and reflect on your own practices with a “tomorrow mind” that will benefit not only your own students, but also others around the world.

There are some great “getting started” books and resources linked from this article. Two in particular are gold mines of information for new teacher researchers.

ASCD Book – Guiding School Improvement with Action Research by Richard Sagor (many chapters available for free online)

Teacher Research – A guide to teacher research from the Graduate School of Education, George Mason University.

Posted on

A virtual conversation on the future of education – come one, come all!

Educon 2.0 is this weekend, January 26 & 27. This “un-conference” is being held at the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia to discuss the future of education. There are no traditional presentations – the agenda is to create conversations on various topics, and to not be restricted by time or space. No small vision here!

So – here’s your chance. Please join in the conversation!

Not only will there be a free-flowing conversation in the room, each session has access to a Ustream channel and a wiki associated with it. Ustream is an online video streaming site that can broadcast live video feeds. If the technology gods smile on us, we will be ustreaming the conversation live. People can participate by watching online and text chatting their comments, contributions, and virtual rotten tomatoes. I hope to have someone at the session act as the moderator for the ustream chat and bring comments and conversation into the room.

This means that people (you?) can participate in a number of different ways, by suggesting conversation topics ahead of time on the wiki or by viewing the live video stream and chatting as it happens.

Help Wanted
If you will be at Educon 2.0 in person, I need a volunteer (or two) to help monitor the video feed and text chat and be the voice of the virtual attendees. If Ustream doesn’t work, we could try Twitter or Skype to enable virtual attendee participation. We are the first session at the conference, so we get to be the pioneers on the bleeding edge. Fame and fortune await. If you are a session facillitor at a later session, you might want to help out just to see how (or if) it will work for you. You may just want to have a good laugh! Either way, email me at sylvia at genyes.com and I will be eternally grateful.

I’m involved in facilitating two sessions:

Influence without Authority: Finding the Common Ground to Frame Innovation and Change (with Kevin Jarrett)
Session Time: Sat. 10 – 11:30 EST (US Eastern)
Everyone loves conferences. You come, see amazing presentations, meet incredible people, have thought-provoking conversations, and leave inspired. The next day, you’re back at your district. The memories are still fresh, and your Twitter network waits at the ready, but you’re all alone. What do you work on first? Where do you begin? How do you advance your ideas? Facilitate change? Make a difference?This is a conversation about techniques, processes and best practices surrounding change in what some say is one of the most change-resistant organizational environments on the planet – our own public schools.

Wiki: Click here for resources
On Saturday at 10 – 11:30 AM (EST) – Join the uStream video and chat: EduCon Channel 1

What is Student Voice?
Session Time: Sun. 12:30 – 2:00 EST (US Eastern)
Web 2.0 advocates often list “enabling student voice” as one of the reasons to use collaborative tools in the classroom. However, what is “student voice”? It’s obviously not just students talking; it’s something more subtle and complicated than that. It can be looked at as a classroom practice, as a school practice, as impacting the local community and also the larger educational community.

Wiki: Click here to add to the conversation starters
On Sunday at 12:30PM (EST) – Join the uStream video and chat: EduCon Channel 1

Posted on

Technology should not be transparent

When educators say, “technology should be transparent” – what does this mean?

I fear that it means that:

Cookiea) We believe that people are so scared of it that they need to be fooled. So if we downplay the technology, perhaps they won’t notice and will eventually come to accept it. Sort of like hiding spinach in the chocolate chip cookies.

or

b) The use of technology just supports the existing paradigm, so of course it’s transparent. It simply makes it easier to follow the same comfortable path.

I know that many people actually advocate hiding spinach in cookies, but I believe that ultimately, deception comes back to haunt you.

What if the technology is so transformative that it can’t be ignored? What if the learning experience could not be achieved without the use of technology? Isn’t that the ultimate goal?

Sylvia

Posted on

Blending models of technology professional development

This is the third part of a series of blog posts inspired by the book, Meaningful Learning Using Technology: What Educators Need to Know And Do by Elizabeth Alexander Ashburn (Editor), Robert E. Floden (Editor) (Amazon link) and specifically a chapter Fostering Meaningful Teaching and Learning with Technology: Characteristics of Effective Professional Development written by Yong Zhao, Kenneth Frank, and Nicole Ellefson of Michigan State University Michigan State University (MSU).

  • Part 1 was about the book in general and the 4 key factors found in effective technology professional development.
  • Part 2 was a more detailed exploration of the 4 factors and specifics about the findings related to the GenYES model.

This third post explores why these models are excellent examples of technology professional development and the lessons that can be learned from them.

The researchers for this book chapter identified “four large-scale efforts that were shown to be effective in affecting teachers’ use of technology.” These are:

1. The Project-Based Learning Multimedia Model (PBL+MM)
2. The Galileo Education Network Association (GENA)
3. Project Information Technology (PIT)
4. The Generation Y Model (previous name of the GenYES model)

These four models represent some of the best professional development models for technology use in K-12 classrooms. They also have some elements that can be studied, adapted, and used by anyone. These are all complex models with many elements, so I apologize in advance if I’ve shortchanged any of the descriptions. I invite corrections and additions.

The Project-Based Learning Multimedia Model (PBL+MM). Also known as Challenge 2000, this model focused on specific professional development that helped teachers use technology tools with students to create multimedia projects in core content classes. It also had a strong peer-based community for the teachers and taught teachers skills needed to successfully teach project-based classes. Book available through ASCD.

More information: Unfortunately most of these sites are no longer in operation.  PBL+MM website. SRI evaluation. Exemplary rating by USDOE Expert Panel of Educational Technology.

The Galileo Education Network Association (GENA). This is a project out of Alberta, Canada. From their site: “Galileo is about teaching for deep understanding. Galileo supports teachers to design inquiry-based projects in which students use the digital technologies of their time in creative and thoughtful ways.”

More information: GENA website.

Project Information Technology (PIT). This project was conducted in the Netherlands in the early 1990’s. Teachers were grouped into areas of expertise and met six times a year to work on common projects. Findings showed that teachers were most influenced in their use of technology by their peers. I couldn’t find much online about this project besides the homepage of the lead researcher, Dr. Betty Collis.

The Generation Y Model. This model uses students as trainers and support systems for teachers. Students and teachers plan and create technology projects for the teacher to use in their classroom. The model uses specific curriculum for the students that is also project-based and models collaboration techniques for students.

This model was recently renamed the GenYES model (since Gen Y children have grown up past K-12 age) and is the model that I’m most familiar with!

More information: GenYES website. NWREL and other independent evaluations. Exemplary rating by USDOE Expert Panel of Educational Technology.

Similarities and differences
You can immediately see similarities in these models:

  • Emphasis on project-based learning and constructivist pedagogy
  • Teaching teachers pedagogy AND technology at the same time
  • Establishing a community that was valuable for the teachers as they practiced new skills
  • Focus on student learning and student created projects
  • Emphasis on open-ended technology tools that foster creativity and student choice. These models do not train teachers to use “drill & practice” or test-prep software with students.
  • Little “tool” training
  • Technology strongly connected to curriculum and teaching needs.
  • Intensive time commitment – none of these are “hit and run” trainings. All involved long term support for teachers in the classroom or very close to the classroom. Teachers didn’t have to wait around to ask questions or consult with colleagues or experts.

Differences

  • Where the training/support takes place – Gen Y and GENA works with individual teachers, PIT and PBL+MM had larger meetings and trainings.
  • Community building – Gen Y establishes students as participants in the support community, while others relied on meetings. These days I would think that building online community would be a key component.
  • Who did the training/support – in general, GENA provided visiting mentors for extended periods, while PBL+MM relies on peer teachers and peer collaborations. Gen Y relies on student/teachers partnerships mediated with virtual coaches.

Recognition by US DOE
It’s also interesting that two of these models (the US based ones) were both named as the only exemplary models of educational technology by the US Department of Education’s Expert Panel in Educational Technology in 2001. This panel was convened to determine “what works” in educational technology, and they selected 134 models to explore in depth. Only two of these models were named exemplary, the highest rating: Generation Y and Challenge 2000. Both these models were also part of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program in the late 1990’s.

Using these models
Schools, districts and service centers looking at these models may wonder if they can be implemented and what it costs. Do you have to hire Generation YES to have an effective student-led support system for teachers? Do you have to hire GENA if you want teachers to design inquiry-based projects for students? Of course not. No one owns the idea of kids helping out, or project-based learning. All the research from these projects is available on the web and in books like this one. You can design your own program tomorrow, and maybe someday somebody will be writing about your model!

What schools may decide to pay for is materials, training, and support that organizations like Generation YES and GENA can provide. It’s hard enough to implement innovative programs that tackle big issues like technology integration combined with project-based learning AND invent it yourself.

Summary
By combining these exemplary models, you can provide teachers with expertise, peer coaching, and student support. Create multiple ways to support teachers, rather than multiple technologies that confuse teachers. Teachers could get support in their classroom from students, in informal, local events with peers, and in more formal trainings with experts.

It’s easy to see how a technology professional development program could strive to implement the similar aspects of these programs. It’s not as typical that a district or regional center will implement a blend of professional development designed to balance out the strengths and weaknesses of any one professional development model.

I work in many schools where teachers come to trainings exhausted after a week of serial trainings in one technology after another with no bridge between them. This can only serve to convince teachers that technology is simply piling on, instead of providing a coordinated effort to build 24/7 support for teachers.

By providing teachers with a blend of support, community, and opportunities that tie together philosophically, they can learn and use technology tools that work for them and their curriculum with confidence.